Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 28

Contextualising the Framework for this Discussion
Following up Sgeureka's excellent comments above, I bring an active case at hand to expose the difficulties incumbent here.

I have initiated and followed up over the last two days a rather lengthy merge debate at the discussion page of the US series House over secondary characters that currently enjoy standalone articles. It may be of some use to editors in this forum to see a context in which this guideline is actively deprecated, since it suggests the real challenges that exist and puts paid to some of the how many angels on a pin disputes we are having here.

I recently suggested mediation since the differences have become intractable. In the context of that solicitation, it is interesting to see that the core positions upon which we are basing our discussion are simply deprecated. The basic attempts to introduce a guideline that enmesh the principles of WP:RS, WP:NOT & WP:N into the core focus of WP:FICT are simply dismissed. Consensus is interpreted as local, not global. WP:FICT is dismissed as a disputed guideline that reflects the wonkery of a few committed individuals. The challenge of real-world focus & impact is deprecated based on arguments of inherited notability, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, appeal to the inclusionism of the Pillars, or else a straightforward WP:IAR. Many have interpeted the recent arbcom ruling as an explicit endorsement for allowing such content to remain. The tenor of this particular debate has, as Sgeureka can amply confirm, been played out elsewhere. Finally, the process generates personal animosity against those editors, such as myself, who seek to implement our policies and practices.

My point here is that unless we can find a way actually to assert the principles of this guideline over committed local editors, it will have precious little value. Regardless of how much we bandy back and forth disagreement over what does or does not constitute a valid spinout, or the basis for establishing notability of subsidiary fictional topics, I think it is clear that committed local interests will typically thwart the intent of this guideline. If this guidelines is to succeed, therefore, I think it needs to address these kinds of counterpoints very explicitly and we need some kind of teeth to ensure that a consistent practice is implemented, substantiated and maintained. Eusebeus (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you very strongly and you have put this point across in a most lucid fashion. Looking at discussion page of the US series House, may I say you have chosen a classic example of where local consensus is being used to ride roughshod over Wikipedia guidelines, which apply even to a fictional character such as Alison cameron who is probably one of the hottest characters in popular culture at the moment (I mean hot from a fictional point of view, of course). "I think it is clear that committed local interests will typically thwart the intent of this guideline" is an immense understatement the problems you face in relation to the debate about the applicability guidelines, and can see that in addition to having to deal with every single claim for exemption from WP:RS, WP:NOT & WP:N under the sun that supporters of having a stand alone article will put forward, you will also experience a lot of very painful attempts to discredit you personally as an editor. You are one brave guy to be sticking your neck out to assert that Wikipedia guidelines are global, and the problems you face in mediation make  my problems look very insignificant by comparision. My hat goes off to you. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Another example of how we need to include opinions of fiction article editors even when they don't bother to comment on this page. If enforcing this page requires a bunch of revert warring that means that this page needs to be changed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you very strongly. I do not disagree that there is passionate disagreement that has led to edit-warring.  I do not disagree with you that, "Many have interpeted the recent arbcom ruling as an explicit endorsement for allowing such content to remain."  However, I vehemently disagree with you on the following points:
 * Consensus is not divided into global and local. Consensus is consensus and in that sense is always local.  Consensus at WP:N has led to our current notability guideline.  Consensus at the "House" articles is demonstrated by their current status.  No matter how much some editors would prefer immutable, unbreakable, enforceable, black and white rules, that is not how Wikipedia works.  WP works through the messy consensus process over time.  The wording of articles may change thousands of times and we could debate whether any of these versions are better than another, but that is the way it works nonetheless.  Consensus is consensus. [break]
 * That's simply not the case. Recently the editors who were here reached a consensus that the current disastrously-worded spinouts section was appropriate, and acted on that consensus.  That went against the opinions of the wiki at large, so it attracted new editors to this page (such as myself) who pointed out that the local consensus that existed did not reflect the more widespread consensus. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have no need for "teeth" in this guideline or enforcement powers. This guideline is simply supposed to reflect current "best practices".  This guideline should detail what we have learned through experience to be the best way.  This guideline should reflect what is being done that brings articles to GA and FA status.  Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive (or proscriptive).
 * I think this guideline should be simple. How do we, editors in the trenches, decide what topics are of note.  How do we demonstrate to other editors (and readers for that matter) that a particular subject is notable.  'Nuff said.  Let's move on.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ursasapien, your point is clear and articulate. And I think wrong. I have just initiated discussion concerning global v. local consensus (so please weigh in at WT:CON since your views are important). The fact is that editors weigh in at a global level and expect those principles to be observed in the instance. That is why so many editors here are battling back and forth - because the decisions reached here will have ramifications for fictional content generally. One may not like the outcome, but it is reasonable for the community at large to expect one to observe it nonetheless. Let me put it bluntly: as I see it, a band of local editors at "House" or "The Simpsons" or "As the World Turns" do not get to decide on their own what kind of encyclopedia they are writing. That is why we have policies and guidelines and they are vitally important because of that. You have a strongly held view about fiction that is largely out of touch with consensus viewpoints - but trying to move the goalposts with respect to consensus is a slippery slope; if you extrapolate from your remarks, imagine what would happen elsewhere across the project. You need to be careful, lest you let slip the dogs of war as a result of a local passion. Eusebeus (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eusebeus, I think you have little idea about my "strongly held view about fiction," so I will lay it out for you. I strongly believe that an encyclopedia should be readable, informative, and even somewhat enjoyable.  As such, I think our coverage of fiction should be in line with that goal.  I find it unenjoyable to read every little bit of trivia and minute detail about a subject in an encyclopedia.  Looking at the article shampoo, I would not expect a list of every brand of shampoo ever manufactured or even every type of ingredient ever put in a shampoo formulation.  Just hit the highlights.  Nonetheless, I also would greatly not enjoy an article that talks solely about the atomic structure of shampoo and it's deeper philosophical meaning.  I consider myself to be a moderate that leans toward inclusionism and eventualism.  I think that your views are largely out of the mainstream consensus of editors, here at Wikipedia.  I believe this is why you find yourself in such conflict with your colleagues here.  Of course, now that I have said that, I realize I have little actual knowledge of your editing philosophy.  I just know that you often find yourself in conflict with other editors and, when you do, you claim that some mysterious "global" consensus somewhere supports your point of view.  If this is actually true, why not produce the goods.  Get this host of editors to help you with your "clean up" efforts.  Take the article to AfD and this "global" consensus will certainly show up and prevail.  I have learned a bit about claiming that I am backed by consensus.  Usually, if you have to claim this, you are not backed by consensus.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that if edit warring is required to enforce a guideline on many pages, there isn't truly consensus for that interpretation of the guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! Do we have any policies and guidelines concerning mixed metaphors? Though playing football on an icy hillside would certainly be interesting. :-) Fletcher (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * lol - I am an idiot. Eusebeus (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, you may have discovered the way to finally settle this dispute! And I'm sure it will be no problem at all to reach consensus on whether we play American-style football or European.   Fletcher (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair Eusebeus, it's not this guideline that I would happily deprecate. Trying to shoehorn notability into Wikipedia is inevitably going to lead to conflicts with the substantial number of editors who have never bought into that concept. If the contributors to this discussion spent just a tenth of the energy into looking and adding real-word sources into fictional articles instead of continually discussing notabilty guidelines you might not find yourselves so disconnected from the common or garden editor. Catchpole (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Current consensus in Wikipedia already exists for Ursasapien view that "We have no need for "teeth" in this guideline or enforcement powers" (see this earlier discusssion for details), but I disagree with with Catchpole that we are trying to shoehorn notability into Wikipedia. I think the point of the guidelines is to attain certain long term objectives for the type of encyclopedia you want Wikipedia to be future, rather than to act as a big stick with which to beat editors of opposing viewpoints with. Basically, they are a source of guidance for getting articles improved. Alas, improvement is not a concept that can always be agreed upon through local consensus, where concerns about good content and style are often subsumed by an obsession with subject-matter. My understanding is that the guidelines promote (or at least they used to promote :p) the requirement to provide evidence of notability as a means to attaining goal agreement amoungst editors with different interests, opinions and objectives as to what sort of improvement needs to be made to an article so it can be judged on its own merits and not on personal opinion. The objective of this guideline is not to act as yardstick by which we can identify awful articles (although I often do that like in the instance of (like Jedi), but as a means to identifying how good they could be if the unifying principals of GNC were applied . I don't know if any Star Wars articles have received Good Article status yet, but I hope on day they do. As regards your last point, I think we would spend a lot more time at each others throats than we are doing now if it weren't for the guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think the point of the guidelines is to attain certain long term objectives for the type of encyclopedia you want Wikipedia to be future, rather than to act as a big stick with which to beat editors of opposing viewpoints with." is not correct. Guidelines are created by current consensus, consensus cannot be created by guidelines.   If one is trying to shoehorn in a personal view of where WP should be, rather than where it is, then there's a problem.  Mind you, once guidelines are established, they can change but these changes have to work with the ebb and flow of the consensus, and not be islands unto themselves (lest they fall into a bureaucracy).  --M ASEM  22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * GNC isn't a unifying principle; it's a catch-all last resort that is an alternative to more specific guidelines. Something with appropriate coverage is presumed to be notable; it's not the only way to show notability, as shown by WP:BK, WP:PROF. SamBC(talk) 23:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I note Jabba the Hutt is a featured Star Wars article. Fletcher (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I think there is consensus that articles on fictional elements should be moving towards becoming at least as good as or better than Jabba the Hutt, which meets most GNC requirements. I don't think anyone here would want the article Jedi to be the standard we are aiming for, which is why I think the guidelines are important for attaining certain long term objectives, namely improvement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Radical proposal
Here's a radical proposal. Why not write two versions of the guidance, and then poll the community. Whichever one gets a majority wins. Both sides accept the decision. It's done and dusted. Hiding T 14:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, not that again! We'd end up with a 100% inclusionist version and a 100% deletionist version; moderate editors couldn't contribute to either.  Whichever version won, it would harm wikipedia. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That of course assumes neither side is clever enough to work out how best to capture the middle ground, or the middle ground decides for itself what it wants. An assumption I don't buy. I'm also unclear why moderate editors wouldn't contribute to either. Still, I asked a silly question, it was treated as deserved. Hiding T 15:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Should there be a WP:RPS? Fletcher (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists
How about:

"Lists of characters and lists of elements are neither inherently non-notable nor are they inherently notable. Any work for which a large number of reliable sources exist can be presumed to have details on significant characters.  Works which are serial in nature may also have lists of characters, and where such parent articles get too large it may again be useful to split a list to its own article to cover the major recurring characters. Such lists should not be exhaustive, but should cover a suitable amount of characters so as to provide a basic understanding of the work, since Wikipedia is not a replacement for the work itself nor is it intended to be a directory. Editors are expected to come to consensus as to what characters to include."

It's one starting position. Hiding T 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Refs

 * I like that this proposal leaves out the question of inherited notability for lists, since even I am not so sure (I have stopped participating in fiction-list-related AfDs a few months ago). I also like the call for common sense based on the size (and yes, also in popularity) of the work, which in turn is usually proportional to the existance of reliable real-world sources and therefore share traits with WP:N, without requesting that notability absolutely needs to be demonstrated in lists to acknowledge their encyclopedicness. I am unsure about the mention of "exhaustive" though: While wikipedia obviously shouldn't mention characters/technology/whatever that only appeared for 1 minute on-screen or one page of a book, it remains unclear where the cut-off point should be, and we're also entering balance territory again. Collaborating with wikia like e.g. List of Star Trek characters: A-F is doing, allows a topic/list to be pretty exhaustive (although a bit directory-like), while giving proper balance according to the characters' significance, and being useful. That's just one solution though. – sgeureka t•c 10:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just threw exhaustive in as a starting position, becuase like you, I am unsure where the cut off is. I have no problem with saying that editors differ on how exhaustive such lists should be. I remember when our guidance used to actually refer to our differences. :) Hiding T 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the basic words to this effect are fine. This sets the point, and a more developed section can give more guidance on what exhaustive may be, incorporating wiki's better, or the like.  My thought is that while we don't want articles on every single character or episode from a work (outside of those that are notable), there is no reason that we cannot set up these articles that one can still search on names and terms and either find themselves redirected to a list article that talks about that more, or to a disambg page where they can find the link to its discussion in context.  So being exhaustive is not necessarily a major problem as long as it is done with some planning: for example, one-shot characters should likely be redirected to the episode the appear in, instead of creating a separate list for them.  However, all this advice is WAF.  This section I think can replace the whole "spinout" idea (or at least work that they act as spinouts of a main work leaving their notability still in question). --M ASEM  13:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think if we're going to leave notability of lists up to editors' opinions, we should probably not mention lists at all. That way people don't have to wade through paragraphs of non-advice in order to find the actual guidance.  The text from "Works which are serial in nature..." onwards is good style advice, though, and would work well in WP:WAF Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we need to mention lists somehow. Otherwise you get into a sort of perpetual battle over whether the guidance applies to lists or not.  If it doesn't, you need to say up from that it doesn't.  Maybe we could make the bit before "Works which are serial in nature..." a footnote to the word articles in the sentence on the main page which reads "For articles on fiction, reliable sources..."? Hiding T 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hiding. The format and approach can be fully described more in WAF, but that LOE/LOCs are a quantum state of notability needs to make their mention in here important.  Or more specifically, let's assume that the guideline is accepted, and down the road, someone finds a list of characters article that they are unaware how to judge the article's notability.  Unaware of how to judge notability, they start at WP:N and likely end up at WP:FICT.  If we don't say explicitly anything about these, that user may think the list non-notable and start the deletion process, which will likely upset some editor somewhere.  If we at least say, these lists may or may not be notable, that prevents any misunderstanding, though that editor may still want to concern if the list is appropriate.  --M ASEM  13:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If they end up here and see that we give no notability advice, then they'll still start the AFD process. This basically says "get consensus" and the quickest way to do so is via AFD, so if you want to avoid AFDs you're better off omitting this.   Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Requiring "Reception" sections in fictional character articles is asinine.
Just throwing this out there. It seems articles based on fictional characters require a "reception" section to exist these days, which is, as stated above, asinine. No one looking up a fictional character on Wikipedia cares about what place they came in on a poll or what an editor of a random magazine had to say about them, these sections are in essence just tacked on trivia forced into articles so the real information people want to read can maintain the right to be viewed. Now feel free to argue about this matter circuitously for a few days before moving onto the next entry in this neverending war over how to make a bad guideline more specifically worded. - 4.154.239.195 (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Characters don't require a reception section. However, character articles need to show real-world context because we are a highly generalized encyclopedia that needs to be verifiable and present information without bias or original research; quite often, the addition of a reception section for a character is the easiest way to satisfy that, but there are other means.  If you can't provide this information, the character shouldn't have its own article, but that doesn't mean that the character cannot be talked about in the context of the work itself on the work's article page or the list of characters for that work.  --M ASEM  02:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a mildly valid point. I posit that the vast majority of editors and readers don't care about the "encyclopedic" information that we require.  If people wanted or expected sections on things like reception we'd already have that info.  Notable articles on fictional characters exist for years, and when they're AfD that's when the info is added.  Not because anyone who reads or edits the article thinks it should be included, but because that's the surest way to "win" an AfD.
 * I've seen articles that are in the top 50 of most viewed wikipedia articles deleted because of lack of notabiltity. Hundreds of thousands of readers and hundreds of editors have seen those pages without noticicing any problems.  Again it shows that something is wrong with our notability guidelines, not that something is wrong with thousands of people. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (...must...refrain...from...arguing...) If readers don't care about the "encyclopedic" information we require (and we're not asking for much), what are they looking for in an encyclopedia? But I agree with Masem. In order to not be dumping place for plot and original research like we used to be, wikipedia must ask for verifiable real-world content in some way. – sgeureka t•c 06:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And to respond to Peregrine more directly, people look for all sorts of things online. They may look for a place to host a personal blog or website. They may be looking for a price guide, user reviews, or a list of retailers for something they're thinking of purchasing, or a travel guide for a place they're considering visiting. They may be looking to advertise their business or product. They may wish to publish their personal opinions or new ideas or original fiction. They may wish to share their knowledge of something they know how to do, and provide step-by-step instructions for others to do it. They may be looking for the daily news. And they may be looking to put up in-universe fan material for their favorite work of fiction.
 * All of these can find a place on the Web. Many of them may even be highly popular, and if we allowed them would be highly popular here. That does not change the fact that none of it belongs here. If people want to publish in-universe fansites, they're welcome to do it. They're just not welcome to do it here. We mirror independent, reliable sources. If the independent, reliable sources do not write about the character itself and only cover it in context of the work, we should follow their lead, doing the same&mdash;a brief mention in the parent work-of-fiction article, provided of course that the work itself is notable. It doesn't matter what people "want" to see. Imagine if we wrote articles for politicians or religious figures based on what a lot of people would "want" to see in that article. We just follow NPOV, including its undue weight requirements, and sometimes that means "The sources don't consider it important enough for anything but a passing mention to place something else in context, so to avoid giving it undue weight, we don't either." Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're listing stuff from NOT (travel guide etc.) and I don't think all of those are hotly contested like the parts that apply to fiction. If there's some page similar to this where people are trying to change the rules so we can allow lists of retailers and consensus supports it, then we should allow lists of retailers or whatever.  We make decisions with consensus and parts of FICT certainly aren't consensized by editors "out there" and isn't really even consensized by editors "in here." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is no need for real-world information, whatever that may be. What we require in our articles is that the information be NPOV, verifiable and not original.  The only special consideration we have for fictional material is that we should respect copyright and  so not go beyond fair use.  As an example, if I go to the article about Sherlock Holmes' housekeeper, Mrs. Hudson, as I did the other day, I expect to find good information about her role in the Holmes stories.  I do not expect to find much in the way of real-world information as she is a fictional character.  And since Sherlock Holmes is now public domain, we have little need to worry about copyright. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I think if there is "real-world information", great. If not, nobody really cares. --Pixelface (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mrs. Hudson is hard to judge as an article towards this as 1) its a stub and 2) there's some possible RWI through how her name came to be (but there's no sources presently). However, if ultimately there was only her role in the books and that's it, then it would be better to include her in a list of SHolmes characters with a redirect to that.  We can and should still cover non-notable characters and elements with appropriate use of cheap redirects and populating disambg pages, but should not be making it more difficult to maintain WP and lead to articles that may violate V/NOR/NPOV by allowing many individual articles flourish.  --M ASEM  14:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see how putting articles such as Mrs. Hudson into a list format is any improvement. It does not nothing at all to address content issues - it just changes the title of the article.  There seems to be no logical reason for listification. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Two reasons, and basically this is to balance those that want coverage of fictional elements (as we still cover characters like her) and those that want a more maintainable version of WP. It is much easier to watchlist and upkeep a single list of characters (making sure no OR/POV gets added) than it is 10 or more individual character articles. And to some degree, it does address content issues.  Not so much on Mrs. Hudson (as there's not much content) but take the current Winston Smith (1984) article, and discussion from WP:NOT on the PLOT guideline.  Between the main 1984 article and the character articles, the plot is repeated 5-6 times over.  A list article would help naturally to restrict the discussion of each character to main, overall attributes, deferring the plot to the main article.  No topic would be lost in this type of merge, just the lengthy descriptions. --M ASEM  14:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience is that lists are more problematic to establish and maintain because they always raise questions of scope. An article about a single character has a well-defined scope which makes editing straightforward.  A list, on the other hand, raises questions such as inclusion/exclusion, the level of detail and the appropriate structure - sorting order, tabular format, etc.  For an example, see List of female stock characters in which I am trying to impose order in the face of editors who have a quite different vision.  Naturally, I prefer my approach but the conflict is unsatisfactory and arises largely from the list format. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC Closed?
I note that Miszabot has archived Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1. Is the RFC deemded to be closed and if so what conclusions can we draw from these discussions? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of discussion for the last two weeks, it seems closed to me. As for the conclusions, my take is that the answer to the question "are spinout articles lacking secondary sources appropriate for WP?" is clearly not yes or no.  The trend is "no", but there are special cases we should make (LOC/LOE). --M ASEM  15:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - it's "no, but with exceptions"; rather than "yes, but with exceptions" which is what we have at the moment. Can we remove the spinouts section now?  Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do what you will, just understand that it will continue to be disputed until we are able to define the exceptions and build a greater consensus. Ursasapien (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I just don't want to keep seeing people pointing to it in AFDs as if it were policy. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we perhaps just delineate the "exceptions exist" thoughts of the rfc with something like:


 * Editors believe spin out articles are useful in certain instances, but the article needs to be well written in accordance with the manual of style, and cite sources, even if it limits itself to primary source alone, and must define why it is of importance to the notable work and parent article. Articles which meet these standards may still be listed for deletion, and a consensus may still form to delete such an article, because at present there is no clear consensus on Wikipedia to either include or exclude such articles except on a case by case basis. Hiding T 11:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this wording on the grounds that it gives no actual point that a "spinout" should happen. Anyone walking along could create dozens of "well written" spin-outs with nothing but IU and plot information, which would directly violate our policy on said things.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki. Feel free to edit it until we get a consensus on how the text should read, per WP:CONSENSUS. Hiding T 12:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we need it at all? There's no guidelines elsewhere that say that they're included, so we don't have to worry about the "no" part; and "keep it if there's consensus to do so" is how AFD works anyway, so we don't need to worry about that sort of exception.  If there are specific types of exception worth mentioning, we can mention them on their own - as the other sections do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course we need it. We need it to explain to people the current state of play. That after all, is what guidance and policy does.  It explains what happens.  Have I correctly explained what happens?  Is the purpose of guidance to offer advice on current practises on Wikipedia?  Certainly, that's what Policies and guidelines tells us, although it is possible consensus has changed.  However, if that is the general consensus, then not adding advice on current practises appears to be counter to established practises on Wikipedia, no matter what a local consensus on this page might be. Hiding T 13:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that there already is advice on how spinouts are treated; it's found at WP:N and elsewhere on the page. By having a section on spinouts, we're saying they're always treated specially.  That's not the case.  We're better off having no section at all on spinouts-in general, but instead have sections on the specific exceptions.  Anyway, most of the paragraph above is style advice and should be on a style page.  Only the last sentence provides actual advice, and that advice amounts to "start an AFD".  Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand you. Which section or sections are you looking to remove, for what purpose? Also, I would hope we would agree that what is covered in WP:N is not really of too much relevance to what appears on this page, since I would hope we all agree that the purpose of this page is to give readers and editors advice on current practises regarding notability and how it affects articles on fiction. [break]
 * My understanding is that the purpose of this page is to give readers and editors advice on current practises regarding notability of articles on fiction; we can assume that readers of the page are familiar with WP:N and don't need to repeat it except to state how it affects articles on fiction. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better to first establish what the common practises are? Then we will better be able to document them? What do you believe the common practises are when it comes to articles spun out from larger articles on fiction? Hiding T 13:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Based on experience of AFDs, I believe that the common practise is to treat spinouts the same as all articles: Either they satisfy the notability guidelines, or a consensus is reached to keep them for some other reason, or they are deleted.  As such, there's no reason to mention them at all in WP:FICT.  I think that the section WP:FICT should be removed because it does not describe current practise and does not have consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We should not be relying on AFD to judge the quality of spinouts, only as a last resort as an editing process. We should reflect what happens at AFD, certainly, but a guideline needs to help offset what ends up at AFD to help take off the load from admins working there. --M ASEM  13:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we rely on AFD - I'm saying that this is what happens at AFD, so that's what our guidelines should look like if we want them to reflect what happens at AFD. And at AFD, articles is articles is articles, whether they're spinouts or not. If we want to take weight off the AFD admins we should give clear guidance, or at least defer to the existing clear guidance at WP:N; if we say "case-by-case basis" then editors will act in good faith to find a consensus by starting deletion debates. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We still need to state something about them here. Lets take a new editor that may be aware FICT exists, spies what we are considering an acceptable exception LOC article, and wonders if it should be deleted.  Turning to a FICT that does not explicitly mention these will lead to the presumption that the article is non-notable (true) and thus should be deleted (which is not true), and may lead to some editing warring.  Yes, the advice for non-notable spinouts is buried all over the place, and technically already exists, but this is not an acceptable situation for helping newer editors along.   Yes, ultimately, whatever DR route is used should be a case-by-case basis, but we need to spell out that LOE/LOCs are the current exceptional cases as per current best practices. --M ASEM  14:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note that we are not supposed to document "current practice" generally; it's accepted that widespread practice is often bad; my understanding is that policies and guidelines document current best practice. That is, if things currently happen but cause recriminations, bad faith, etc etc, then guidelines shouldn't say to do those things. SamBC(talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, certainly - it should be current best practices, which for FICT is what is the fate of articles at AFD that are brought up as non-notable, not simply because there already exist umpteen LOE/LOC articles already. The allowance of LOE/LOC is derived from AFD results. --M ASEM
 * ...except that it isn't. There are a lot of LOE/LOC articles that have survived; but not all do.  My experience is that some serial works are sufficiently notable to support a main article and a list article, but some aren't.  I'll see if I can dig out a few AFD examples. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd. There are a wide number of afd's which have resulted in keep, which seems to copntradict your assertions above Percy.  If some articles which do not rely on secondary sourcing are being kept, how are we to better write this guidance to reflect that? Hiding T 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that they don't usually get kept; I was saying that they don't always get kept. Having looked through the AFDs I've contributed, I can't in fact find an example of a straight LOC/LOE being deleted; but the existence of the AFDs shows that it's not true to say they're never challenged. There were, however, a great many AFDs for lists of characters belonging to a specific groups that have been deleted. I don't think we should say that LOCs/LOEs are automatically acceptable if a work is notable; because then we'll double the number of articles overnight; but perhaps we should explain why they're encouraged as an alternative to single-element articles. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, some may fail. I know one: Characters of World of Warcraft 2nd afd.  However, its failure was not that it wasn't non-notable, but that it was a non-notable mess that was noted once to editors to be in bad shape and no cleanup towards that or notability was shown by the second.  I'm sure there's others, but this basically points to such articles also having to meet specific style guidelines (aka WAF).  Thus, we still need to state these are generally safe exceptions, but how they are written will also affect their fate as to be described in more detail in WAF.  --M ASEM  15:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree up to a point, but depth of coverage should be important too. If there isn't much real-world coverage of the characters of a work, then a list isn't justified. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree there, and have included three specifics: highly-notable, serial work or series of works, and not extending the depth of coverage. --M ASEM 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (←) Yes - that's a good start. I don't think the middle one is actually necessary; a highly-notable individual work could justify a characters list.  I'd be happiest if we could find a way of describing "highly notable" that could be assessed without appeal to AFD.  What about a footnote saying "a fictional topic is 'highly notable' if the amount of real-world coverage available for that topic substantially exceeds the minimum requirement, and it has a number of independently notable subtopics" as a starting point? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone support/oppose this footnote? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Percy: there is no evidence of support for the spinouts section, and it should be removed in the first instance. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbBreak
The current version is actually looking pretty good to me. I think it adequetly addresses the point of non-notable spinouts well (making arguments for very specific cases, but still with the possibility of some specific cases we have not seen), though I'm not sure if saying they are "notable" is necessarily true per how notability is generally taken to mean, but I understand the intent (this is just wording changes). I will caution that one could read "merge less-notable elements to a list" could be taken to mean any "zero-notability" elements too. There's probably some congruity with the depth of coverage section that can be made (reducing that size down). --M ASEM 16:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've made good progress today. Regarding the DOC section, there should probably be a corresponding section in WP:WAF; some of the current guidance might be better placed there.  I think there's a lot of overlap between the "Non-notable topics" section and the "Dealing with non-notable fictional topics" section, so we may be able to combine those to get a less wordy guideline without losing them.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Frequent changes to WP:FICT must cease
As soon as the RFC closed it seem that everybody wanted to change WP:FICT without consultation. It looks as if everybody got their pens out and started scribbling all over it. There have already been 15 changes to the guideline today (April 28th), but not a single change has been brought here for discussion, let alone agreed upon.

I believe that editors at WP:FICT have got into a habit of assuming their changes to this guideline are permitted, as if it were editing their own talk page. Could I request that changes are proposed here and clearance is obtained first? Every editor claims their version of the guideline has consensus, but the reality is that no editor has a monopoly over the their content; WP:FICT is not some sort of personal fiefdom.

Could I ask that these frequent, casual and unwarranted changes cease immediately? It is totally unproductive to revert each other edits in any case. Otherwise I propose we should rename this guideline from WP:FICT to WP:FIEF--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All these changes have been based on the previous thread and no one is editing warring or reverting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach, given that we still have this marked "proposed" and thus other editors should be taking it with a grain of salt. --M ASEM  15:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, it's a wiki, and this is a proposal; people are collaboratively writing a new draft in wiki-fashion. And please stop throwing around words like "must" as if you're delivering ultimata. SamBC(talk) 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec x2) I saw the RfC as the main discussion, and as the analysis. FICT has been "updated" in such bursts since January (and still has the "proposed" tag), each time when an RfC or other discussion had shown a consensus direction. Quite a few of the recent edits to FICT were also only for typos and grammar. If someone really disagrees with the recent changes, he can revert it, and discussion would resume like normal. That's been the way for the last three months, I remember. – sgeureka t•c 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is it would be a "guideline" instead of a "draft" if it was not for all these casual edits. Could we not agree to discuss changes here on a line by line basis? It is standard practise for drafting guidelines on a collabrative basis. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone editing it right now feels that their edit will magically make this a guideline, and fully realize its a proposed draft. We are collaborating within every normal editing policy. --M ASEM  16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be a guideline rather than a draft, as it hasn't had consensus. I don't think people are editing it casually, I think they are editing it thoughtfully. And while it is common practice for editing existing guidelines to discuss changes, it's also acceptable to make changes directly, and they will stick if they represent consensus; this happens more often if they are small, of course. However, none of that applies to the act of drafting a proposal. SamBC(talk) 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it not a good idea to consider what it take to make this a guideline instead of draft? Ideas anyone? --Gavin Collins (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One idea is that the people here need to try and guage what the general article editors feel the policy should be based on their edits. How would you summarize the general editor position Gavin? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We (via Masem) had a separate draft for about a month, and only moved it to WP:FICT (replacing the disputed version) when we were sure it has enough consensus to become a guideline soon. That was in late January, but new people kept streaming in to offer their input and thus hindering the draft from becoming a guideline. Everyone of us is trying to create a guideline that everyone can live with, but no-one can crystalball what other objections may come up later. – sgeureka t•c 07:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fear that WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BEANS apply to some of what we are doing now. Percy continues to state that editors will use the spin-out clause of WP:FICT to defend non-notable articles.  I wonder if there is some evidence that this has ever happened or if we are trying to make some type of iron-clad guideline that will protect against any possible misinterpretation (an impossible task IMO).  Percy, do you have an example where someone argued that the spin-out clause of this proposed guideline allowed them to keep a non-notable article?  Ursasapien (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a textbook case of the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle at work. Which is a good thing. --erachima talk 07:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not always. I've had this same concern not too long ago, and strongly urged people to use a draft page first. The fact that people feel so free to be bold is one of the reasons people are claiming that WP:FICT isn't stable. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to Peregrine Fisher, I would characterise WP:FICT as fish bowl with goldfish swimming around and around, where nothing is remembered, and nothing remains stable because no one can remeber what has gone before. I see a cyle of discussions and revisions, but no progress towards making this draft a guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The constant revisions are the progress towards making this draft a guideline. If you believe we are still far away from the "final" draft, please say so, and we could turn it back into a separate draft (but we've already been there in January). Or we move to an RfC soon to propose this draft to the general public as a final draft and then work from there. – sgeureka t•c 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the wiki way, per WP:CONSENSUS. The progress you desire Gavin is happening before your eyes. Editing together is how we achieve consensus. Discussing is how we decide what time tea is. As to Ned's point about [[WP:FICT not being stable, it isn't stable because it hasn't captured consensus. As soon as it does, it will stabilise. Endlessly reverting and pointing people to talk actually damages the stability and the wiki process and our method of creating guidelines and content. Hiding T 08:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no progress, no evidence of consensus (which seems to mean I am right, you are wrong), and I have seen you revert my edits (without discussion). This is guideline is not your fiefdom, and what I am proposing is that changes are discussed in advance. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're asking that we run everything past you. We're not the ones with ownership issues, Gavin. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not in fairness. I am requesting that changes are run by all of us, which is not being done, perhaps out of laziness. I have no ownership issues; I cannot control whether you listen to any proposal made by me or any other editor. My point is that if changes are not announced in advance, how do you know if they are worth making, or whether they could be improved on. Where in WP:OWN does it say that we should not discuss matters first? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No - that's not what you're doing at all. You're well past the point at which it's sensible to assume good faith; if you were really interested in getting along you wouldn't be involved in mediation right now.  Some changes will be discussed beforehand and some will be discussed afterwards.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Percy, you need to stop. Gavin has several valid and good points, and you're just acting like an asshole right now. -- Ned Scott 09:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's how he gets his way - he mixes reasonableness with unreasonableness until the other person snaps and stops being civil, and then he's won. The mediation he's involved in now to try to deal with his months of bad edits will end that way too.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I am making is that I would just like to be able to keep up. I have started a section that is already redundant (Dependent Notability). It just seems to me the rate of change on this guideline is accelerating, with no end in site. I am making the suggestion that we discuss changes first as a proposal. If there is no support for this proposal, just ignore what I am suggesting. I may have strong views, os no offence is taken.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, wanting to keep up sounds reasonable. However, those familiar with Gavin know that he is already in trouble for making literally hundreds of contested edits in very short spaces of time; so it's not reasonable for him to want to keep up when he makes sure others can't.  However, let's take him at his word for now.  It seems to you that there are a lot of changes recently: that's because the rest of the editors have reached a consensus that change should happen.  However, there are still a lot of details to work out.  If each editor gave a proposed diff, all that would happen would be that we'd have twice the traffic on this page that the main page is getting - so it would be harder to keep up, not easier.  The easiest way to demonstrate a proposed change is to make it; it's easily reverted if it doesn't get approval.  So long as the 'proposed' tag isn't removed, and the proposed edit is smaller than the discussion that proposing it here would cause, it's appropriate to be bold and make the edit first. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Think about what you are saying, we are basically like a lot of goldfish, going around and around, nibbling at each others edits, with the only exception being that we can't nibble on the 'proposed' tag, when it should be our primary objective to get rid of it. I thought the end of the RFC was the point where changes to the guideline could be negociated, but it is already too late: non-notable spinouts have been taken out, but the opportunity to negociate a common position with Masem has been lost.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, if you want to remove the proposed tag and add the guideline tag, feel free to do so. That's how a wiki works. As to how Masem feels, I think we'll leave that up to Masem. He's free to edit the page right back.  An insistence on discussion on the talk page before making edits is actually counter to policy counter-productive.  If you find that odd, maybe Wikipedia isn't for you? Be aware that on a wik there is never an end. Everything is continually open to being rewritten. If you don;t wish your edits to be rewritten, do not add anything to Wikipedia, where all text is editable and all text is released under the GFDL.  Nobody owns anything here, and nobody is due anything except attribution. Hiding T 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What good would that do. You would only revert my edits as you did last time. However, just because you can, does not necessarily mean you are right. What I am proposing is that the content of this guideline should be treated at least as respectfully as a good article, that is there should not be an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Any disagreements as to its content should be the subject of negociation here. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it doesn't seem to be assuming good faith to assume I would revert it back. Although such a reversion would fall under WP:BRD. As to whether I would be right or not if I did so, that's a matter for consensus. And looking at the edit history of the page, there is no ongoing edit war or content dispute. There is reasoned editing, mutual respect and an attempt by all parties editing the main page to work towards and within WP:CONSENSUS.  Hiding T 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's a suggestion; how we got to where we are now is less important than what happens next. How about we now leave it alone (except for trivial changes and small tweaks, and people can always revert those) and talk about the current text and how to move forwards from there. The changes all seem to be in line with the apparent consensus(es) of the RFC, such as it (they) was (were). I would suggest doing this in a new section. SamBC(talk) 11:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what a goldfish would do. Ignore all the discussions that went before. That is why we should discuss changes first, as if we were editing a Good Article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say ignore old discussions; I said that how we got here was less important than where we go next. Social interactions are clearly not stochastic processes, let alone memoryless. The point is that we work on fixing things rather than moaning about how they got broken (not to say anything is actually broken now; it was just part of the metaphor). How they got broken can inform how we fix them, but to debate endlessly the cause of the fault without trying to move forward is clearly wasteful. SamBC(talk) 13:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to comment that I only made changes (that lead to a series of improving edits) after seeing the feedback from the above section about the RFC closing. Once it was clear that the approach of "no with exceptions" in regards to nn spinouts, that set the type of language that makes FICT more acceptable than the version that did seem to allow any and all nn spinouts. This still achieves the goal I've been helping for FICT: We're not allowing X articles on fictional topics per inclusionists, or 0 articles per deletionists, but now something around but less than log(X) - a current middle point that reflects common practice even if it rubs against PLOT a bit, if only to make WP a happier place to edit, and to be able to set the stage should a larger trend in WP go towards less or more fictional coverage. --M ASEM 12:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording on second paragraph of dependent notability
The current wording of the dependent notability subsection is quite confusing and needs clarified. Specifically the following paragraph:


 * In very exceptional cases, a grouping of non-independently-notable elements can merit their own supporting article. These groupings are considered to be notable only for highly-notable works or series of works, and only if this information does not exceed the appropriate depth of coverage of the work.  Generally, these articles are limited to two types of groupings:

I propose it be reworded as follows:


 * In rare cases, where none of the above steps can resolve the length problem without damaging encyclopedic coverage of the work, groupings of dependently notable elements can merit their own supporting articles. This should be considered only for highly notable works, and the information within the supporting articles should not exceed the necessary depth of coverage for the main article's topic. Under current practice, these supporting articles are generally one of the following two types:

I believe this wording is much clearer, as it ties the paragraph to the previous content in the section and gives an explanation of the suggested process. The previous wording required the reader already understand what concept the paragraph was attempting to convey before they could properly divine any direct guidance from it, which is unfriendly to newbies, to say the least.

Comments? --erachima talk 08:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. – sgeureka t•c 08:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Hiding T 08:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it runs contrary to GNC. We have been down this road before: the so-called "length problem" can be solved by judicious editing.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you are opposed to the paragraph as a whole. My rewording to include the phrase "length problem" does nothing but make explicit what was meant by "exceptional cases" in the previous form. --erachima talk 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At some point, Gavin, could you drop the argument that it is possible to run counter to the GNC. Since the GNC bows to subject specific guidance the argument is unhelpful.  If you have a reasoned objection beyond it running counter to the GNC, it would be better if you presented that.  Hiding T 10:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The elements themselves aren't notable, the grouping is. Also, renaming the section means the first bit doesn't belong there, as it doesn't talk about elements with dependent notability. The other wording changes I'm fine with.  I've made an edit that I suggested yesterday, moving the section on acceptable lists up and the section on dealing with non-notable things down; hopefully that addresses most concerns here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...which Erachima has largely reverted, but the new wording ("Fictional elements as part of a larger topic") is fine by me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dependent Notability
This section is totally disuputed. It is not supported by GNC and we have already discussed why reference to "consensus" is not workable:local and global consensus can conflict. I have no idea who thought this proposal is remotely acceptable: notability is not inherrited, and there is no evidence to support the argument that it is. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The section of the GNC begins with "If a topic...". FICT however approaches articles as main articles and subarticles/spinouts, and discussions have shown there is disagreement whether subarticles automatically have inherited notability or none whatsoever. So the tradeoff now is "notability can or cannot be inherited, depending on the (type of) subarticle." The section is therefore not "totally disputed". – sgeureka t•c 09:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In a literalistic, wikilawyering sense, perhaps it does. In the much more important sense, looking at the ideals behind those policies, it goes with the GNC hand in hand. Providing sufficient depth of coverage on a notable topic is incapable of contradicting the GNC, because it has meeting the GNC as a part of its preconditions. And not to be curt, but if you have no idea who thought this proposal was remotely acceptable, then I suggest reading the archives, starting from the middle of last summer when its prototype was lauded as a way out of eternal discussion deadlock. --erachima talk 09:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The section (now named Fictional elements as part of a larger topic) is directly supported by footnote eight of the notability guidelines. Why would it need support from the GNC, which specifically states that it's only one of many possible criteria? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
I read the above discussions but have little desire to join in because it seems unproductive. My thought is to wonder whether we should give it up as a bad job. Is there a special process for getting rid of failed guidelines or is it just the usual process of going to AFD? The latter might be a way of getting some new blood to see what they think. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You tag it as rejected or historical. And if you capture consensus with your edit, it remains tagged that way. Hiding T 10:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you really want it actually deleted, it goes to MfD. SamBC(talk) 11:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's started moving forwards again in the last few days - and for the first time in months, the current guidelines seem to be nearly acceptable to most people here. Ignoring the discussions about whether we should be having discussions, it looks like there are only a few things still to be worked out. If we can convince you to join us, then your contributions would be very welcome. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC) You are correct on one thing, Gavin, this is a POV issue here. The POV in question being yours, and the issue being that you're single handedly attempting to stonewall consensus based on a flawed understanding of WP:N. --erachima talk 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I second Percy with this (and would even have said it before him if someone hadn't fully-blocked the webcache here). We've got some stuff that looks good, and IMO is nearly in a state that could achieve wide consensus. SamBC(talk) 11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (To no-one in particular) May I just note that the current version isn't that much different from the long-discussed draft version that Masem moved to this guideline page in January? This just affirms that this is the closest we can get to actual consensus (but tweaking and discussion will never stop, which isn't necessarily bad). If FICT got deleted or rejected now, NOT#PLOT, OR and N would take over, which would be much more desastrous for low-quality fiction articles than with FICT in place. – sgeureka t•c 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just added the guideline tag as a test the water move. There is now a bot which posts such tagging to the pump, so it should bring a few more editors through to look at it.  We'll see how long it lasts. Hiding T 12:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree (that it's similar, not with the tag). The crucial difference is that - per the results of the recent RFC - it no-longer includes spinouts by default.  I still think we need to add something to allow users to identify "highly notable" topics without taking them to AFD before the guideline will be fully ready - no-one has responded above so I'm tempted to be bold and add my suggested note. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will restore the tag, on the grounds that there are serious conflicts with WP:N still to be resolved. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which bits conflict with WP:N? WP:N recommends minor topic lists. Percy Snoodle (talk)
 * You can't conflict with WP:N as people have demonstrated to you on numerous occasions. Do you have any other objections? Hiding T 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you can conflict with some of it, which gives general points on handling notability (like requiring objective evidence); you just can't conflict with the GNC. It's possible Gavin was talking about something else. SamBC(talk) 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a different reading of it than I do then. To me, "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." means that subject-specific standards can say what they want. That was always the intent, mainly because when WP:N was drafted, WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT and WP:ACADEMIC had no mention whatsoever of what is now thought of as the GNC. Besides which, WP:N doesn't call for objective evidence. Hiding T 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have subject-specific standards for fiction, please state them. However, no one has put forward a subject specific standard for fiction that makes any sense. GNC is the only real benchmark by which fictional elements can be considered; any other criteria are just POV. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "If you have subject-specific standards for fiction, please state them." You mean the ones in WP:FICT, supported by editorial consensus and widespread Wikipedia practice among experienced editors?
 * Gavin, you are likely absolutely correct that fundamentally, the only notability guidelines for fiction elements that meets all other aspects of the Five Pillars (V/NOR/NPOV) would be the GNC with sourcing; like the awards discussion below, certain approaches simply can lead to one line of factual notability amid 100 lines of IU discussion. The point that's been made over and over for months, as a result of the RFC that closed, and the like, is that taking a hard line towards fiction elements would lead to a disastrous editing war worse than what is going on now, simply due to the numbers.  It is very clear from discussions long past that we need to give the inclusionists some leeway to balance the past approach (articles for every element) to the acceptable approach seen through both voluntary efforts (the Great Pokemon purge, WP:ANIME, among them) and XFD results that allows some, but limited, non-notable lists.  Consensus has driven us to this point, and WP is guided by consensus, even if they are contrary to guidelines.  Yes, we'll have to make sure these lists don't become OR/POV cesspools and that such lists aren't abused to list all minor points, but there's already many good cases (again, see WP:POKEMON and WP:ANIME) where voluntary efforts show that these lists, while only sourced off the primary work, are treated as encyclopedic support of the main topic, cataloging (but not necessarily detailing) all the significant elements of such works. --M ASEM  15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You made this strong argument before in an earlier section (Note to Sambc: I think therefore I am not a goldfish!). However, the counter arguments are very much stronger:
 * Edit wars, ArbCom cases and arguments over notability are a sperate process and will continue unabated, independent of Wikipedia guidelines.
 * No matter how you change WP:FICT, there will always be a difference between Local consensus that a topic (eg every single Pokemon character) is notable, compared with the Wikipedia wide consensus (i.e. GMC), which in my view represents an ideal that the articles should be improved over time, not given licence to languish in the world of unproven notability indefinetly;
 * What consensus there is has has not driven us to write WP:FICT in such away as to give notability exemptions from certain topics; that would be an example of the the tail wagging the dog. We can still stick to GNC even if it appears to be a rock road;
 * Lists are covered by WP:LISTS, and their content should not concern us here;
 * However, your attempts to argue that, other than GNC, there are obejective criteria by which the notability of fictional elements can be judged seems to be failing. Really the argument boils down to "should be add notability criteria that are subjective?". However, the section "Fictional topics as part of a larger topic" puts this question in a dishonest way. If you want to throw a line to inclusionists (and discourage mass deletions and mergers without consultantion), then lets talk about how to deal with these issues, not how to sweep these problems under the carpet.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTS is a style guideline, not content. We cannot let LISTS describe content issues.  And we are not sweeping issues under the carpet.  There is a point that in context of improving the encyclopedic treatment of works of fiction, it is necessary to discuss characters and other elements within the context of the main work, and sometimes it makes better sense for usability to split them out; these merit a different criteria for inclusion than what GNC can cover.  Limiting such to characters and to episodes of highly-notable works sets a line where we reduce the number of non-notable individual topics out there, suggest and point editors to improvements in fictional treatment to cater to both the casual reader and the fan of the work, and basically represents global consensus seems to stand on how such articles should be treated. (We still must toss this guideline to global consensus checking, but we are now closer than ever before).  Edit warring and local consensus vs global consensus are unavoidable; however, providing the path of least resistance to all sides keeps these down to the minimum amount instead of something that will drastically split the project.
 * Remember, in the end, WP:N and the GNC are guidelines and meant to be broken if it improves the encyclopedia. Inclusionists have provided good, valid reasons why we discuss some non-notable topics, deletions have provided good, valid reasons why we shouldn't go into incredible detail about them.  FICT now seems to adequately capture the reasonings from both aspects and other viewpoints that fall in between.  But, just as there are staunch deletionists that feel that GNC must be held above all, there are inclusionists that feel that notability has no place in WP; there are always extremes we will be failing to meet.  The collective comments of everyone that participated has helped to define where those extremes are and to know of points that are not acceptable to a majority of the users while meeting WP's core mission. --M ASEM  17:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N and the GNC are guidelines, but if you break from them, you need to come up with criteria that are stronger than, not weaker than them, othewise editors will just cite WP:N. In my view, WP:BK is a strong guideline becasue it augments WP:N, by both adding and excluding books specific criteria for judging notability. By providing exemptions from GNC for Lists of characters and Lists of episodes, you are simply allowing articles on fictional elements to be populated by unencyclopedic material. As a result, editors seeking to reduce, merge or edit unencyclopedic content will use WP:N for guidance. By additing this exemption, you may be applying a local consensus to the problem of non-notable subjects for the sake of keeping the peace, but it seems to me that GNC will always supercede WP:FICT if your break away from it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * GNC can't overrule subject-specific guidelines, because WP:N states that a subject is considered (presumed) notable if it meets WP:N or a subject specific guideline; if a topic doesn't meet its subject-specific guideline but does meet the GNC, it is presumed notable. The minor exception to this is that some subject-specific guidelines give guidance as to which sorts of sources and coverage are applicable in the context of the GNC; this isn't providing criteria, but clarifying the application of the GNC to the specific subject. Further, "list of" articles aren't being generally exempted, situations in which they may be appropriate are described, in line with WP:N's suggestion of such lists. SamBC(talk) 17:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course GNC can overrule subject-specific guidelines. If Lists of characters and Lists of episodes are populated by unencyclopedic material, then GNC will beat FICT everytime, as sure as rock beats sissors. Do you see where I am coming from now? How do you ensure that that content on fictional elements is not unenyclopdic if you don't apply GNC? --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's try this: which of these statements is supported by policy and guidelines:
 * To be considered notable, a topic must meet the GNC and all applicable subject specific guidelines.
 * To be considered notable, a topic must meet the GNC or any applicable subject specific guideline.
 * I suggest you cite relevant bits of policy and guidelines in your answer. I'm not meaning to be weird or patronising, just asking the question as clearly as possible. SamBC(talk) 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the questions quite address the problem. If WP:FICT gives exemption to Lists of characters and Lists of Episodes from its notabality criteria, then GNC will appply to those topics by default.--Gavin Collins (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)